Pride Goeth Before The Fall

During his “60 Minutes” interview with a fawning Steve Kroft two Sundays ago, President Barack Obama offered one of the better bons mots he has uttered since he won the right to be the President of the “57” States:

I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history.

His statement was not included on the show; it was available only online. How charitable of those paragons of journalistic skepticism at CBS to spare us all such horrors by carefully editing the piece to exclude Obama’s amble through arrogance. Obama’s careful avoidance of his latter two years aside, millions of people nationwide would have spit out their coffee all over their morning papers upon reading such rubbish. Commuters would have barreled into multiple-vehicle pileups all across America’s highways upon hearing such hubris.

I’ll presume that CBS’s decision to cut the President’s bizarre homage to himself emanated entirely from the desire to protect us all from Obama’s enormously overinflated self-image. Surely, they didn’t cut it to protect the President from turning himself into the butt of the biggest joke since Dan Rather missed forged documents class in investigative reporting school.

While Obama openly placing himself in the top four is howl-worthy on its own, two of his three list-mates are “Michael Moore falling down the stairs” funny. FDR? Of all the Presidents who required a global conflagration to avoid spending the country into oblivion, I suppose FDR is tops. And I believe Johnson’s lone positive act involved not running for re-election — unless Obama was referring to President Andrew Johnson. If that’s the case, his lone positive act was that he didn’t set anything on fire during his impeachment trial.

Even a casual review of the home front reveals that Obama’s only Presidential peers in contributing to the domestic tranquility are those revered icons of economic ineptitude Presidents Jimmy Carter, Herbert Hoover and Martin Van Buren. The unemployment rate, which does not include those who have tapped out of the emaciated job market, remains a millstone around our collective necks. Meanwhile, Obama’s overarching private sector tinkering has benefited cronies like Jeff Immelt and various union thugs while producing Obamacare, Operation Fast and Furious, the “Occupy” fleabags and the Chevy Volt. If he does us any more favors, Standard & Poor’s will cut our bond rating to “Bhutan.”

As for foreign policy accomplishments: Our exit from Iraq appears to have come just in time to make way for Iran to get serious about its nuclear aspirations. The Islamofascists who own that poor land have hardly backed off their terroristic fist-shaking; and when they began mowing down protesting teenagers, Obama responded with halfhearted condemnations. Perhaps if the Iranian demonstrators had been led by the Sharia law-imposing Muslim Brotherhood, Obama would have kicked in a couple of battalions or vocal support in the same manner he did for the so-called “Arab Spring” demonstrators. And while the execution of Osama bin Laden was certainly cause for celebration, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the Taliban continue to steal our oxygen. Elsewhere, Obama’s irrepressible charm has enraged the Israelis, enriched foreign oil barons and earned belly laughs from the Chinese. Hardly the resume of a President on a par with the truly accomplished masters of Presidential politics.

I suppose I should grant Obama some leeway. After all, if the media used up their bag of superlatives to describe me every time I opened my eyes, I might start to believe my own press — no matter how undeserved it might be. A few days after Obama got cozy with his special friend Kroft, the Republican candidates for the Presidency faced each other in another debate. Despite his own delusions of grandeur, Obama wouldn’t have ranked in the top four there, either; and no clever editing by CBS could have changed that.

–Ben Crystal


Mile-High Mania

Last Sunday afternoon, amid the noise of NFL squads either launching a late-season push for the playoffs or resigning themselves to hopes of drafting Andrew Luck, the Denver Broncos chased down the Chicago Bears in overtime, 13-10. In and of itself, the Broncos’ win is hardly the stuff of gridiron greatness. Sure, they came from behind to pick up the victory in a hard-fought struggle. And they needed a little help in the form of a Marion Barber fumble to snare even a chance at the game-winning field goal. But win they did — for the sixth straight week. Given the fact that three of those six victories have required overtime, some have taken to using the word “miraculous” to define the Broncos’ recent winning ways.

I am not among those who add divine descriptions to gridiron grandeur. Luck (“Lady,” not “Andrew”) has blessed the Broncos, who began their season with limited hopes of a title. And an oft-maligned, questionably prepared quarterback has hoisted the team on his broad shoulders and carried it toward the proverbial end zone. Tim Tebow, who began the season clinging desperately to a spot on the Broncos’ bench, has emerged as The Mile High City’s man of the year.

Tebow carries a football resume stuffed with superlatives. He won the Heisman Trophy and a pair of national championships during his tenure under center at the University of Florida. And now, despite an odd throwing motion, a marked tendency to telegraph his passes and an aggravatingly persistent belief in his own right to victory, Tebow looks heroic.

For some people, however, Tebow has become a lightning rod for controversy — and not because they are die-hard Chiefs fans. Forget about Michael Vick, Adam “Pacman” Jones and Plaxico Burress. For what may be the first time, an NFL player has earned the distaste of detractors — from sanctimonious sportswriters who would likely hide behind Tebow if they faced a jailbreak blitz on third-and-long to smug liberals who watch soccer and call football “American football,” despite having never ventured farther east than Martha’s Vineyard — not for being a bad player, but for being a good guy.

Tebow displays more than merely a burning desire to win football games. He displays a surplus of something the aforementioned folks lack: character. As witnessed during his infamous Super Bowl ad a couple of years ago, Tebow — himself nearly a victim of abortion — is unabashedly pro-life. As witnessed every time he runs over some undersized safety at the goal line, Tebow is also unabashedly open about his faith. We should be thankful he is so devout. Imagine the horror if “Vicking” became a meme instead of “Tebowing.” (And imagine the PETA protests at NFL functions.)

Tebow is no paper-thin theologist who praises Jesus on his way to the strip club; his off-seasons are filled instead with mission work to places where the Son of Man himself is less than revered. If only Tebow spent his summers unwinding with a nice puppy-lynching or nightclub shooting, Broncos’ owner Pat Bowlen might have earned a congratulatory phone call from President Obama — much like Eagles’ owner Jeff Lurie did following his decision to allow Vick a second chance. Instead, Tebow is vilified by people who normally wile away their Sundays reading The New York Times style section, looking for another photo of Barbra Streisand to add to their scrapbooks.

Tebow is no second coming — not even of Joe Montana. In fact, he might not even be the second coming of Trent Dilfer. If he were more circumspect about his life off the gridiron, he would garner less attention than — say — Joe Flacco. In the interest of full disclosure, I am no Broncos fan. I will root against them with the volume of a Papal Mass in St. Peter’s Square should they ever meet my Giants on the field. I’ll also be fair and note that some people despise Tebow either because he went to Florida and they’re Georgia fans, or because he quarterbacks the Broncos and they’re Raiders fans (who pretty much hate everyone).

Liberals hate Tebow for his full-throated acknowledgement that his talents, like all of our lives, are a gift from the Almighty. I respect him for actually working to be the sort of role model the NFL seldom features but ought to. But Broncos fans have a better idea about Tebow than either the liberals or me: They love him because he’s 7-1 as a Sunday starter.

The Fast And The Spurious IV: The Empire Strikes Out

President Barack Obama and the bulk of the corporate media continue to act as if “Operation Fast and Furious (OFF)” is a bad movie sequel featuring Vin Diesel and the Rock flexing their muscles and struggling with dialogue as opposed to a poorly conceived and implemented Department of Justice “gunwalking” program that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, armed Mexican narcoterrorists and resulted in the murder of at least two Federal agents.

Across the aisle, the number of prominent Republicans calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to resign is closing in on five dozen. I wonder why that number isn’t significantly higher.

Meanwhile, new information surfaced last week that indicates Department of Justice officials openly discussed leveraging the OFF disaster in an effort to put the proverbial bullet in the Constitution. CBS News reporter Sharyl Atkisson, who has played both Woodward and Bernstein on the OFF story despite working well behind enemy lines, revealed last Wednesday afternoon that DoJ officials openly discussed trying to leverage the OFF-linked murders to push the Obama Administration’s and Democratic Party’s anti-Bill of Rights agenda. Despite the fact that gun sellers pushed into participation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives warned against the gunwalking program, BATF official Mark Chait emailed OFF front man Bill Newell:

Bill — can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

A “demand letter” is a BATF requirement that gun shops provide detailed tracking information on people who buy more than one long gun. The Holder DoJ’s reaction to the unfolding nightmare was to see if they could exploit its almost unavoidably tragic outcome to force the same guys they pushed to sell multiple guns to known straw purchasers to tattle on you if you buy your kids matching Cricket .22’s. Essentially: abrogating the 2nd Amendment is so important, we’ll create our own statistics and allow innumerable innocents to die to do it. An anthropologist might call that “a self-reinforcing prophecy.” I call that “one step from being an accessory after the fact.”

Holder’s behavior throughout the OFF fallout has been dishonest, contemptuous and nothing short of breathtakingly callous. While virtually each day delivers a new detail regarding the depressing depths of executive arrogance from Phoenix to Washington; Holder has repeatedly lied and/or stonewalled about his role in and knowledge of the program. The fact that Holder’s DoJ considered politicizing the murders of two Federal agents and an untold number of Mexicans (about whom he would care more if they made it across the Rio Grande) that resulted from a program THEY ENGINEERED is sociopathically cold.

Senior officials in the current Presidential Administration openly discussed abrogating the Bill of Rights based on the fatal consequences of their own erroneous efforts. Holder either approved of their macabre musings, making him an accomplice; or he didn’t, meaning he’s even more grossly incompetent than most of the rest of the Obama Administration—itself no small accomplishment.

As my deadline approached, 55 Congresspersons, two U.S. Senators, two Governors and four Presidential candidates (Obama is not among them) are calling on Holder to step down. While I agree wholeheartedly with them, I should think that an immediate resignation should be only the beginning of the consequences Holder should — must — face.

-Ben Crystal

No Newt Is Good Newt

In 2008, I cast my ballot for the Republican Presidential ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin. At that time, I wrote in a column for a different media outlet: “I’m going to have to vote for (Senator) John McCain.” Like so many of my conservative compatriots, I simply could not bring myself to pull the proverbial lever for the community activist from the front pew in the Church of Wright and Ayers and his sidekick, Ol’ Pluggsy. Being the well-conditioned believer in the infallibility of our Republican system, I held my nose and stood up against Obama/Biden 2008 as much — if not more — than I stood up for McCain/Palin 2008. Judging by the results of that tragic electoral misstep, I was hardly alone. I joined millions of my fellow Americans in voting for the lesser of two evils. I expect the lack of enthusiasm for McCain’s campaign played a large part in Obama’s victory. Let me be absolutely clear about one point: not this time, baby.

Recent polling, including a scrimmage conducted by Personal Liberty Digest™ just last week, indicates a growing preference for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. In fact, Gingrich has opened a lead over the field that, in some cases, edges into double digits. My instincts lead me to presume that Gingrich’s appeal rests heavily on a combination of fear of four more years of Obama’s dog and pony show and that old canard: electability.

Why even focus on the myth of electability? If the landslide which buried the Democrats nationwide last November told us anything, electability is already settled in our favor. Americans sent liberals packing in record numbers from the halls of Congress all the way to small-town officials’ offices. And let us leave the spirit of bipartisan accord where it belongs, as well. The Democrats abandoned it years ago; and the voters swarmed into the polls last year to remind the Republicans not to follow the Democrats. With that in mind, why the hell would we think of handing the keys to the patron saint of fence-straddling RINOs?

Gingrich is to conservatism what MSNBC is to journalism; if you don’t pay close attention, it seems right. However, in Gingrich’s case, a cursory examination of his curriculum vitae reveals his dalliances with the dark side: his complicity in the Freddie Mac disaster, his support of cap-and-trade legislation and his video love letter with Representative Nancy Pelosi (in addition to some marital missteps which are permissible only for doughy ex-governors of Arkansas). In MSNBC’s case, a simple turning up of the volume reveals — well — Rachel Maddow (enough said).

Now that the Democrats and their accomplices in the corporate media have finished lynching Herman Cain, perhaps it’s simply Gingrich’s turn in the spotlight. Maybe the voters will remember the reason they handed the Democrats a mass of pink slips last November. The corporate media likely will avoid substantive discussion of the various contenders beyond scripted talking points, vague innuendo and — in the case of the tinfoil hat brigadiers on MSNBC — outright slander. Consider that the recent debate producers and moderators seemed less willing to allow Congressman Ron Paul a chance to speak than I am to answer the door when the Jehovah’s Witnesses come knocking (which always seems to occur at 8:30 on a Saturday morning; positively inhuman).

I have not yet decided which of the candidates vying for my ballot will enjoy the privilege of receiving it. But I guarantee you, whoever wins the race for my political heart will bloody well earn it.

–Ben Crystal

The Fast And The Spurious III

Last week, before a rather transparently timed late Friday document dump, Attorney General Eric Holder stuck his skinny finger in the face of a reporter for The Daily Caller and demanded that The Caller “stop” reporting on his role in the disastrous gun-walking fiasco: Operation Fast and Furious. Evidently, Holder has decided that such reporting is entirely the creation of what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once called “the vast right wing conspiracy;” and he wants the media to avert their eyes.

The reporter stopped Holder as his handlers tried to hustle him offstage to avoid questions the corporate media were likely going to eschew asking anyway. He asked Holder about the growing chorus of Congressional demands for Holder’s resignation over OFF. Holder’s response was tragically predictable, considering his membership in an Administration which is as likely to offer direct answers as a fleabagger is to bathe: “You guys… need to stop this. It’s not an organic thing that’s just happening. You guys are behind it.” Translated from the original liberal doublespeak, that reads thusly: “How dare you continue to focus on this scandal, the attendant body count and my role therein! Why can’t you just churn out some fluff about the occupiers like my friends at The New York Times?”

Three days after Holder delivered his rant, the Department of Justice delivered thousands of pages of documents to Congress regarding the failed operation which included the ill-advised plan to allow straw purchases over the objections of career field agents and gun retailers, the arming of narcoterrorists and the subsequent murder of Border agent Brian Terry and Immigration agent Jaime Zapata (along with an unknown number of Mexicans about whom Holder and Barack Obama would have cared only if they had made it to the polls on election day — preferably twice). The document release likely was timed to occur late enough on a Friday to coincide with the low-key weekend news cycle (an odd effort, given the fact that the corporate media would rather offer Christmas cookie recipes than speak ill of Obama and his accomplices).

The material paints a horrific portrait of dishonesty, arrogance and incompetence on the part of multiple members of Obama’s DOJ. In addition to the extraordinary step of withdrawing an explanatory letter about OFF which the DOJ dispatched to Congress in February, the Friday activities were highlighted by the revelation that the now-disavowed missive was the product of an internal debate which raged for three days. To repeat: They required three days to decide on which lies to tell Congress.

In the course of the DOJ email chain about the proper response — which presumably should not have included those pesky “inaccuracies” — to inquiries from Senator Charles Grassley’s staff, former U.S. Attorney and OFF point man Dennis Burke sounded off. Burke falsely asserted that Terry’s murder was unrelated to OFF and charged that Grassley’s staffers were “acting as stooges for the gun lobby.” Those silly “gun lobby stooges” are always asking questions about arming narcoterrorists, murder and potentially false testimony in front of Congress.

We already know that Holder’s testimony about OFF was rife with what taxpayer-funded NPR called “inaccuracies” in a Friday afternoon report and you and I call — ahem — bravo sierra. What we see in the document dump is a pattern of deliberate obfuscation stretching from Arizona to Mexico to Washington over the course of more than a year.

Unfortunately for Holder — and ultimately Obama — while supplicant media flacks are gazing at their navels, Congressional investigators are paying close attention. Grassley and Congressman Darrell Issa, along with nearly five dozen of their compatriots and at least one of the Republican Presidential candidates, show no signs of letting Holder, Obama and their accomplices bury the OFF story. Holder is due for another visit to the Congressional woodshed on Thursday.

Perhaps Holder made the fatal mistake of assuming the blanket immunity offered to his big buddy Barack by the corporate media would not only extend to his own crimes, but would stifle the legitimate media, which has not abdicated journalistic responsibility on the altar of liberal fealty. Among the questions I’d like Holder to answer: “Do you think you’ll like prison?”

To Be Perfectly Frank

Since he let us in on his future plans, Representative Barney Frank has touched off a firestorm of discussion over his legacy of 40 years living off the largesse of the taxpayers of Massachusetts and the United States. As you might expect, much of the discussion has centered on the factor Frank spent the most time promoting: his sexual preference. (Barney liked girls, but not in that way.) I would be remiss in my duties if I sent Barney packing without so much as a nod to the fact that he is openly gay. In fact, Frank is the first-ever member of the U.S. House of Representatives to live openly as a homosexual. Even a casual glance at the fawning political epilogues being offered to Frank among today’s corporate media reveals that Frank’s sexuality is the most prominent — if not sole — reason he will be remembered.

While he made his sexual identity a sword that he used to help gays ascend to a position of political and social equality, his use of the same as a shield against any criticism may well have slowed the process. Call it a backlash, but I would suggest that Frank, much like some of the so-called black leaders, allowed his most-cherished issue to become his sole defining position. For better or worse, Frank countered criticism with unfair charges of bigotry — even when said criticism was deserved. Frank was never a Congressman; he was a gay Congressman. Something tells me that had Frank gone to cooking school, he would have become a gay chef, as opposed to just a chef. Since I am merely an average guy, I can’t necessarily identify with the difficulties Frank faced early in his career; nor can I necessarily identify with the concept of being a member of a once-disenfranchised minority of any sort. However, I wonder how Frank feels now, knowing that his entire career can be boiled down to the fact that he is gay? It strikes me that, according to Frank’s stated goal, his announcing himself as “gay” would be akin to me announcing myself as “tall.”

For those who dismiss my musings as being somehow driven by the bigotry liberals blindly assign to all conservatives, consider who’s doing the talking. The Washington Post called Frank a “hero… for his role in promoting gay rights, having been the most prominent openly gay member of Congress.” The Associated Press labeled him a “a gay pioneer in Congress” before it noted his home state. And the rusting hulk that used to be The New York Times noted Frank “… has been among the nation’s most prominent gay elected officials.”

The media’s effort to lionize Frank — while tossing out only fleeting (if any) mentions of his considerable missteps, failures and scandals — is entirely transparent. The reason has nothing to do with his sexuality and everything to do with his liberalism. Much like the abominable Ted Kennedy, who left behind a legacy of almost shockingly unrepentant corruption and offense (as well as some extraordinarily bad driving), Frank is one of the more redoubtable travelers from the far left of the American political atlas. As such, he earned a free pass from consequences. From his involvement with a prostitution ring to his well-documented complicity in the housing crisis, Frank skated away from scandals that would sink a conservative’s career.

From my perspective, Frank’s private life means nothing more to me than he wants it to. My objections to Frank are entirely political — a fact I expect would disappoint him, given the enormous effort he has put into trying to make me despise him on moral grounds. Frank has supported the Democrats’ efforts to let millions of illegal aliens dance across our borders, stood steadfast with the far left in attempting to abrogate the 2nd Amendment and pushed for government speed bumps on the information superhighway in the form of so-called “Net Neutrality.” He remains a committed supporter of the unholy profanity that is partial-birth abortion. And there is that dalliance with Fannie Mae when he took center stage in the organization’s failure and subsequent bailout for a sizable fee.

Much as it would pain him to hear it, Frank disgusts me, but only in the same way Representative Nancy Pelosi and President Barack Obama disgust me — no more, no less. I will remember him as unforgivably liberal. Sorry, Barney.

The Five People You’ll Meet In Charlotte

In 2003, Detroit-based sportswriter Mitch Albom published the much-heralded The Five People You Meet In Heaven. The book spent nearly two years on the bestseller list and was made into a TV movie starring Jon Voight. It told the tale of one man’s life, growth and death as seen through the lens of five individuals with whom he is inextricably linked.

Granted, none of the five folks of whom I speak today offer opportunities for growth beyond the sort achieved by fungus and mold, and their connection to life and death revolves around the former for murderers and the latter for unborn babies. Some might even see my references to Albom’s work as a shameless attempt to hitch my rhetorical wagon to an enormously successful writer. It is. But Albom lives in Detroit, so I’m certain he has suffered greater pain. And Albom has sold about 30 million books, so I’m quite sure he’ll survive the indignity.

This summer, the Democratic Party will hold its quadrennial Presidential nominating convention in Charlotte, N.C. Among the rogue’s gallery who will descend upon that poor city to re-coronate President Barack Obama (or perhaps not; check out Chip Wood’s column The Plot To Make Hillary President) will be the usual coterie of bottom-feeders who populate every large gathering of liberals. While every single one of them will share the dubious distinction of being members of the Democratic Party, they generally will fit into one of five categories (although given the girth of some of their masters, some pushing and/or WD40® will be involved).

With apologies to Albom, I present: the five people you’ll meet in Charlotte.

The Egghead

Distinguishing characteristics of the egghead include: unwashed hair, a ponytail (regardless of both gender and amount of hair remaining atop the head), speaking with eyes closed and spectacular body odor.

Often nominally employed as either a lawyer or college professor (or worse, both), the egghead suffers from an odd combination of low self-esteem and overestimation of his own intellectual import. This psychological stew produces an individual who recognizes that no one really cares what he thinks, and he responds by replacing import with volume.

The egghead carries a dog-eared copy of Rules for Radicals and the latest issue of Mother Jones in the tote bag he earned for donating $25 to his local PBS affiliate. The veterans write for hate-speech blogs like Dailykos; the real all-stars quote their own material in the third person.

Eggheads are fond of making definitive statements about the evils of conservatives, such as: “The Rethuglicans are pushing for immigration reform because they’re racist” and “The ‘teabaggers’ are so stupid.” The egghead laments 9-11, but only because it made life harder for Muslims. The egghead considers Michael Moore a visionary and George Soros a saint, and he has no issue with the fact that both are archetypal hypocrites.

The egghead supports any legislation and/or court decisions which abrogate the rights to offer opinions, pray or own firearms — except for liberal hate speech, Islamofascism and Mexican narcoterrorists. When eggheads dress down, they wear the jerseys of European Premier League soccer teams and refer to soccer as “football” and football as “American football,” though they’ve never been farther east than a whale-watching trip off Nantucket Island, Mass.

The eggheads’ idols are Keith Olbermann and Rob Reiner. Their defining Issue is the establishment of the United Nations as the world government. Their next destination is Occupy Haight-Ashbury.

The True Believer

Distinguishing characteristics of the true believer include: wearing mom jeans (regardless of gender) and bringing “Hillary ’12” and “Obama ’12” buttons (both homemade) to Charlotte, just to be on the safe side.

When the rest of the fleabaggers headed home to mommy’s basement because it began raining, this was the redoubtable martyr who stayed out there, proudly waving a hand-lettered “I am the 99%” sign. The true believer has never led so much as one of those disjointed chants of which liberals are so fond, but he is the rock upon which the Democrats balance. The true believer isn’t mean-spirited like most liberals; but a dearth of intellect – and, therefore, long-term prospects — have left him vulnerable to believing his party’s promises of an easier life with limited effort. Younger true believers will come to Charlotte with their egghead college professors on junkets paid for by their college student activity funds.

In photos of outraged liberal protesters, the true believer always smiles and is never in the front row. Many members of the Service Employees International Union are true believers who believe that verified reports of union thug and/or occupier violence “are overblown.”

The true believers’ idols are Hillary Clinton (because she’s such a strong woman) and Michelle Obama (because she looked great in the latest issue of People magazine). Their defining issue is… um, let them check with the eggheads. Their next destination is a Unitarian Universalist sing-along and drum circle.

The Joiner

Distinguishing characteristics of the joiner include: owning at least a half-dozen cats, wearing T-shirts proclaiming so (even in rather formal settings) and saying “interwebs” without a hint of irony.

The joiner shows up at Democratic rallies because Democrats need warm bodies, and the joiner has nowhere else to go. The joiner will listen in on conversations of which he is not a part and later misquote the speaker thusly: “They say..” as in: “They say the Koch brothers are funding attacks on the Occupiers!” The joiner seems incongruously cheered by fairly mundane news, as in: “One of Nancy Pelosi’s staffers just told me to step aside.  She was that close to me!”

The joiner watches MSNBC’s nightly tirades and nods the whole time. The joiner reads the eggheads’ blogs, but never writes his own. Male joiners gravitate toward the most outraged female they see. Female joiners gravitate toward the first rock star or movie star they see.

The joiners’ idols are Madonna and Leonardo DiCaprio. They have two defining issues. Older joiners want increased Federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Younger joiners want Federally subsidized weed. Their next destination is determined by their age. Older joiners will go home alone. Younger ones will go back to the vegan dorm.

The Outraged Minority

Distinguishing characteristics of the outraged minority include eight-button suits (male), awesome hats (female) and wardrobe colors not found in nature (both).

The outraged minority Democrat stands apart from the rest of the rabble, partially because he doesn’t like noisy white people and partially because he doesn’t like quiet white people. Outraged minorities will vote for any black Democrat and will subsequently consider any opposition to black Democrats racist. Outraged minorities stood with Marion Barry, O.J. Simpson, Kwame Kilpatrick and William Jefferson, but they consider conservative blacks “Uncle Toms.”

The outraged minorities’ idols are R. Kelly and Johnnie Cochran. Their defining issue is re-election for Obama (and Marion Barry). Their next destination is church; Jeremiah Wright is delivering a special homily.

The Thinker

Distinguishing characteristics of the thinker include: being groomed (but not overly so) and being mortified by his surroundings (but keeping quiet about it).

The thinker is a rare liberal. The thinker is likely socially liberal, but harbors fading hopes that his party can be rescued from the clutches of the aforementioned people. The thinker has studied the issues from multiple angles, and his objections to some positions tend to be fairly well-informed and based on principle — as opposed to ignorance or hate.

Older thinkers voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984 and backed Hillary Clinton in 2008. When Obama loses next November, a large part of his defeat will be due to thinkers abandoning him for Ron Paul.

The thinkers’ idol is President Harry S. Truman. Their defining issue is saving their party from their fellow characters. Their next destination is returning home to their families, followed by work the next morning.

Of course, these categorizations are far too broad. There are many subcategories within each of the aforementioned categories. Unlike the characters in Albom’s bestseller, heaven-bound souls are few and far between; although it would be enormously entertaining to watch a personal injury lawyer try to argue his way past Saint Peter.

Liberals are fond of overly simplistic generalizations; I am fond of making liberals sputter like preteen girls whose parents confiscated their iPhones. What better way is there to do so than to hold up the mirror and give them (and you) a look at themselves, warts — or fleas — and all?

MSNBC Should Keep Sharpton

As I perused the endless reams of material required for Outside The Asylum, I happened upon a piece on The Blaze in which Mike Opelka asks: “Should MSNBC fire Al Sharpton for making (well documented) racially insulting and insensitive comments in public?” Opelka goes on to offer a broad outline of Sharpton’s disgraceful dash for cash and fame and also highlights the well-established liberal hypocrisy required to allow a valueless parasite like Sharpton to continue to pollute the public discourse. In truth, Sharpton has made such a spectacle of himself in the same cottage industry exploited by fellow bottom-feeder Jesse Jackson that Opelka went over his word count without even touching on what I consider to be Sharpton’s career-defining moment: the Tawana Brawley hoax.

I have an answer for Opelka: No. Of course, I agree that Sharpton is a cartoonishly accurate exemplar of the anti-intellectual vacuum which consumes liberals. But I’m also a conservative with libertarian stripes. It is MSNBC’s prerogative to immolate its own ratings with the sideshow refugees it features, if that’s what it wants to do. It is its choice to employ the hate-spewing buffoons who have turned their channel into a perennial ratings loser. It is our choice as viewers to watch something more compelling. Check out the drama of the Knitting Channel, where there is almost no chance any teenage girls will end up smeared with feces.

MSNBC certainly seems excited about Sharpton’s presence in its laughingstock of a lineup. If you’ve endured one of its simpering “lean forward” promos, then you have noticed Sharpton is the star of the newest edition; signaling MSNBC’s plan to continue his tenure. For those of you who chose the Knitting Channel, MSNBC’s latest marketing effort involves one of their hosts babbling incomprehensibly for 30 seconds or so, followed by on-screen graphics reminding viewers that the channel exists. “Lean Forward” replaces MSNBC’s previous strategy: “We let Keith Olbermann in the building unsupervised.” That plan worked well enough to earn Olbermann a spot at the foot of Al Gore’s bed.

It’s worth noting that MSNBC is offering Sharpton significantly more support than it did former morning-show host Don Imus, in whose dismissal for racially tinged comments Sharpton played a central role. Imus even offered a private apology to Sharpton, although I don’t understand how Sharpton routinely manages to position himself as the recipient in such cases. Most, if not all, of the victims of Sharpton’s bigoted slander are still waiting for his contrition.

Should we not all long for a day when the most noxious of our political refuse is as isolated as possible? Let MSNBC continue Sharpton’s employment. Of course Sharpton is vermin, but would you rather have the rats isolated in one terrarium or loosed among an unsuspecting public? I vote for the former, and I bear proof. Consider MSNBC’s energetic promotion of the Democrats’ so-called “Occupy” loafers. Just as rats carry fleas, MSNBC carries fleabaggers.

I hope MSNBC never decides to fire Sharpton. I’m a conservative; therefore, I do not share the liberal belief that free speech should be restricted to those who earn liberal approval. Plus, as long as Sharpton is in the spotlight, I am guaranteed material for The Great Eight. Is Sharpton racist, dishonest and crude? Of course he is, but so are his cretinous co-workers. MSNBC should keep Sharpton in the lineup for the same reasons it should keep his network cellmates, The New York Times should keep Frank Rich and Newsweek should keep nearly everyone on its payroll: It keeps them away from the rest of us — and none of them deserve better.

–Ben Crystal

A High Five To History

Late last week, the boss sent me an email reminding me of my Thanksgiving-week deadline changes. “Perhaps you could write about something you’re thankful for” was a really gentle way of saying: “Remind us why we don’t replace you with Mr. Livingston’s grocery list?”

Duly inspired, I decided to employ some of the lessons I managed to retain from my days as a history major and raise a drumstick to a list of five entities that made Thanksgiving a holiday, as opposed to “30 shopping days until Christmas” Day:

Leif Ericson and the Vikings of circa 1000 A.D. Long before Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue, Leif Ericson and the boys from Norway blundered onto the northeastern coast of North America — specifically Newfoundland, Canada. As it turned out, Leif and his father Eric were less than honest with the folks back home about the hospitable environs to the West, and the Vikings went back to being the scariest people in Europe. Nonetheless, had Leif Ericson not rowed the longboats to Vinland, our tale might have been very different. There is strong anecdotal evidence that Columbus knew of the Vikings’ journeys. At the very least, the people of the upper Midwest might not have those cool accents.

Don Christopher Columbus. It is hardly politically correct to praise the man considered by every good liberal to be the vanguard of the invaders who raped the New World and its people, but expecting political correctness from Outside the Asylum makes as much sense as expecting wit on MSNBC. Backed by the financial wherewithal of the Spanish crown, Columbus delivered the permanency of European domination of the Western Hemisphere. Although things didn’t work out well for the Spaniards (among others), what kind of Nation would we be if Columbus had never made his fateful voyage? The Vikings might have returned, and my name would be Sven. Still, Columbus’s establishment of sea-lanes between Old World and New set the stage for later visitors and the United States. Thanks, Chris.

The Patuxent Indians. The Patuxent Indians were a tribe local to the New England coastal regions. Tisquantum — known to the kids in the third grade Thanksgiving pageant as “Squanto” — was one of the few (possibly only) Patuxent who survived the early 17th century plagues that gave white men the sniffles and red men a one-way ticket to the happy hunting grounds. Tisquantum held the Pilgrims’ hands in those early days. In return, the Pilgrims opened the door to the endless wave of settlers who wiped tribes like the Patuxent off the planet. We got North America, but we let them keep some of the really crappy parts. Don’t mistake this for a genocidal, white-eyed rant. I never handed anyone a smallpox-infused blanket. The Indians were brutal before we showed up; we were just more efficient about it. And should you count the take at the Mohegan Sun Casino’s blackjack tables, revenge is theirs. Nonetheless, thanks. Sorry about the leptospirosis.

The Pilgrims/Puritans. Thanksgiving Day is their day, after all. In the interest of the sort of historical accuracy no longer offered in government schools, I should tip my hat to King Charles I of England. Chuck was a devotee of the divine right of kings, an attitude which the Puritans found less than godly. He persecuted them mercilessly, inspiring them to board the Mayflower, sail West, survive with considerable assistance from the locals and ultimately found the Massachusetts Colony and some lovely country clubs. They received a lot of help, but they made it. Without them, the Eastern half of the United States would be New France. We’d be eating pommes frites. Thank you, Puritans.

Almighty God. Barring His Divine guidance, this entire piece would be either moot or written in German. At the dawn of the Age of Exploration, Europe was a miserable place. The Black Plague had done to the people of the continent what smallpox and cholera were about to do to the Native Americans. The major religious influences had strayed far from His Word. The Old World was positively Hobbesian; life was indeed “nasty, brutish and short.” But the aforementioned hardy souls braved the unknown and discovered the other side of His incredible creation. And they gave thanks to Him, a worthwhile tradition I join you in continuing today.

Happy Thanksgiving to you all.

–Ben Crystal

Welcome Back, Carter

I know remakes are all the rage in Hollywood these days, but when did former President Jimmy Carter get written into the script at the White House? It has been three decades since American voters — exhausted by his epic incompetency and appalled by a supporting cast that made the Sweathogs from “Welcome Back, Kotter” look like the board of directors at the Cato Institute — canceled Carter’s show. I hardly expected a comeback three decades after it went off the air.

To be fair, President Barack Obama is more Carter’s evil twin than his reanimated political corpse. Carter never employed an Attorney General who may have been an accessory after the fact to the murder of two Federal agents. Griffin Bell’s worst offense during his tenure at the Department of Justice involved sneaking rooster pepper sausage into the White House. And Carter never kissed up to oil-rich Islamofascists by selling out Israel. But Carter did deliver us to a rather infamous national malaise. If Obama’s recent statements and actions are any indication, he is determined to march us back there.

In a recent speech to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit (which took place in his home state of Hawaii, which is not “Asia” — unless Brunei is the 58th state), Obama described us as “lazy.” It’s offensive to hear a profligate, socialist buffoon blaming us benighted taxpayers for the economic doldrums he and his liberal accomplices created. We shouldn’t have to endure direct insults such as:

We’ve been a little bit lazy I think over the last couple of decades. We’ve kind of taken for granted — “Well, people would want to come here” — and we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new businesses into America.

Unfortunately, that was hardly the first time Obama has channeled the bumpkin from Plains, Ga. Last month, Obama told a ballroom filled with well-heeled liberals: “We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge.” Where did I leave my ambition? It’s probably in the other room, with my religion and my guns.

Of course, our current national plight is in no way related to his crony capitalism — including, but not limited to — his political relationship with General Electric Co. CEO Jeff Immelt, who shipped 36,000 jobs to China while exhorting American corporate executives to hire more Americans.

And Obama’s politically motivated protection of dead-end schemes like making a loan guarantee of $500 million to Solyndra Inc. couldn’t possibly have contributed to our current situation. After all, who’s going to miss a half-billion taxpayer dollars flushed down the rabbit hole of unproven and unnecessary technology? At the same time, Obama killed more than 200,000 energy industry jobs on the altar of environmentalist dogma. If this keeps up, we will all have to drag that scooter we bought during the 1978 gas crisis out of the back of the garage.

Obama even told a group of Australian kids that their American counterparts have “fallen behind.” The President’s union thug brethren have choked the life out of our government schools despite record funding levels, a problem which has grown exponentially since Carter cut the ribbon on the Department of Education. Yet the union thugs (and, therefore, Obama) have stood steadfast in opposition to every idea to improve the stewardship of future generations — except for the ones that included more money for the union thugs and fewer chances for the kids. It’s worth noting that Obama, like many of his fellow upper-echelon Democratic pals, sends his brats to private school.

Obama says the Nation’s problems are the fault of everyone but him and his Democratic accomplices. By Obama’s reckoning, we taxpayers are stupid, immobile, unimaginative and superstitious. We linger in the economic swamp because we’re a bunch of gun-toting, Bible-thumping rubes who drag our dull-witted whelps about in the backs of pickup trucks (as opposed to, say, a Chevy Cruze).

I say: “Why, President Carter! Wow, you are really, really tan!”

Judging Obamacare

Surely, no one could be silly enough to think that a nation built on free enterprise would ever allow a group of unelected lawyers to start making decisions about their doctors. And surely, no President in his right mind would risk the proverbial smack upside the head which would result from a Supreme Court review of the Constitutionality of a second attempt to dig nationalized healthcare (think Hillarycare, Cuba and/or the Soviet Union) out of its grave. And just as surely, no liberty-loving American would stand for this sort of Presidential nefariousness — would they?

Wrong, wrong and wrong again. As we all know, President Barack Obama has gleefully dragged Hillarycare back into the light of day under the busy moniker “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” A vocal — albeit breathtakingly ignorant — minority has rallied to the cause. And thanks to the extraConstitutional nature of Obama’s undead healthcare albatross, the Supreme Court of the United States has set it up on the block for their next term.

Obama has kept his version of Hillary/Castro/Lenincare on his platform. Although detractors have dubbed it “Obamacare,” the goal is the same: allow unelected lawyers, bureaucrats and other shadowy functionaries control of your medical decisions. And Obama has carried new lumber to the plate: a gross misunderstanding of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. In pushing the resurrected monster of socialized medicine (including death panels and rationed care), Obama has decided that the Interstate Commerce Clause allows the government to force American citizens to purchase something they might not want.

While that seems at best counter-intuitive (the Constitution generally enumerates citizens’ rights and governments’ responsibilities, not the reverse), and at worse Stalinist, Obama remains undeterred to this day. Federal courts have ruled unConstitutional Obamacare’s key section 1501 b, a/k/a: the Minimum Essential Coverage clause, which reads thusly:

An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month…If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013…there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).”

Translation: the taxpayers must pay for the privilege of not paying for insurance. And there’s the rub. The Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution in no way allows the government to penalize anyone for NOT buying anything. Some liberals have tried to draw a vertex between Obamacare and auto insurance requirements. However, no one is required to drive a car. Obama’s own ambulance-chasers have actually tried to hide his intent with doublespeak; alternatively claiming §1501 b called for a tax or a penalty, depending on which judge they were trying to fool.

Lest you think the Constitutional argument against Obamacare is self-evident, witness a key ally on Obama’s side of the death panel: Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan. Kagan, who served as Solicitor General for Obama prior to his naming of her to the high court, has stated her support for Obamacare. In an email exchange with ex-Obama flunky and current Harvard professor Laurence Tribe entitled “Fingers and toes crossed today” Kagan celebrated: “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.” Obama is heading into the Supreme Court’s review of Obamacare with a guaranteed vote in his pocket; barring Kagan recusing herself — which should happen, but probably won’t.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas may well form more than a bulwark against Obama and the Democrats’ unConstitutional power grab. Should they drive a Constitutional stake through Obamacare’s heart, Obama’s reelection hopes may die with it. But it should never have gotten this far.

The Fast And The Spurious II

Last week, while many Americans tuned in to watch the Democrats’ racist cage match with Herman Cain — not to mention what ought to have been Governor Rick Perry’s final few moments of national prominence — Attorney General Eric Holder stopped by the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss Operation Fast and Furious and cemented himself as the most corrupt and incompetent (the smart money is chasing the latter) head of the Department of Justice since Janet Reno stumbled back to Florida.

Some of my fellow pundits have pinned the disastrous Operation Fast and Furious on Holder’s (and by proxy President Barack Obama’s) gross ineptitude. Others have gone so far as to suggest that Fast and Furious was designed to create the exact scenario it produced — a flood of untracked firearms and the murder of Border Agent Brian Terry — in order to push gun control onto the table for 2012. I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle: Holder is sinister, but also incompetent. He is cartoonishly evil, a bumbling sociopath.

For those of you who possess attention spans as short as adolescent fleabaggers, Fast and Furious was an integral part of a continually unfolding scandal involving hundreds of millions of dollars wasted by Obama’s Administration. It proved only that the Federal government can funnel illegally obtained firearms to Mexican drug cartels despite warnings not to do so from multiple sources.

Of course, the irrepressible Holder already has been caught lying about his involvement in the ill-fated and idiotic operation. On May 3, Holder said during a Judiciary Committee hearing: “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.” Documentation reveals Holder was sent briefings on the operation in July 2010. But Holder (and by proxy Obama) was hardly finished playing his outrageous role in the unfolding tragedy of errors, which infamously included the murders of two Federal agents, including Terry. Holder repeated the lies he told Representative Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee, even managing to resurrect the claim that Fast and Furious was a “local” program about which he had no knowledge. Documents reveal that assertion to be entirely untrue.

This afternoon, the 39 Congressmen who have called for Holder’s resignation will hold a press conference to publicly air their demand. Unsurprisingly, nary a Democrat will stand with them. Instead, doddering liberal goon Representative Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) continues his efforts to distract from the scandal with demands for unrelated hearings. Meanwhile, Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has called the examination of Holder’s misdeeds “politically motivated… a meritless distraction from the important work of the Department of Justice.” Far be it for me to note that as long as a bottom-feeder like Holder is in charge at the Justice Department, distracting him from his “important work” is akin to distracting a bear from eating your child or even distracting Mexican narcoterrorists from murdering Border Patrol agents.

Holder’s tenure at the Justice Department has been lamentable on its best days. He finally apologized to Terry’s sister last week via email, and then he leaked a copy of the afterthought to Democrat-friendly POLITICO in time for the next day’s front page. Small wonder interested parties from the Terry family and friends all the way to Congress have remarked on Holder’s “coldheartedness.” In addition, Holder has ignored invitations to Terry’s funeral and associated memorials. Then, in his latest attempt to shrug off the Fast and Furious fallout, Holder refused to acknowledge that the operation led directly to Terry’s murder — a denial which makes even less sense than the decision to give the go order for the disastrous operation in the first place.

Whether he’s refusing to even acknowledge culpability for what was either active malfeasance or gross incompetence in his handling of Fast and Furious or demonstrating breathtaking arrogance in lying about details of the operation that already have been exposed, Holder has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that his continued presence in the Attorney General’s office is an affront to basic decency. He has proved himself to be an inveterate liar, and he may have committed perjury in front of Congress not once, not twice, but thrice (and counting). Granted, Democrats tend to consider those mild offenses business as usual. But Obama promised the Nation a “transparent” Administration. So why, oh why, does his Attorney General continue to try to hide the truth from us all? And why does this supposedly “transparent” Administration stay silent on Holder and Fast and Furious?

–Ben Crystal

At The (Term) Limit

I never supported mandatory term limits. I am well aware that the vast majority of those who hold elected office could better serve their constituents by taking a long stroll off of an appropriately short pier (unless they’re Kennedys). I am also aware that many of us live with precisely the government we earned at the ballot box. To put a fine point on it: We already have term limits. Every election represents the potential end of the term of the corrupt, the incompetent and/or the just plain undeserving.

Unfortunately, far too few of my fellow Americans share my attitude; especially when it comes to accomplishing more at the ballot box than picking up one of those fun little “I voted” stickers. Far too many of our Senators, Congressmen, commissioners, mayors, aldermen and such hold their positions for far too long. The re-election rate in the U.S. House of Representatives in the sea change year of 2010 still hit 85 percent, tying 1970 for the lowest mark in half a century. Your Congressmen managed to best their beleaguered Senate colleagues by a whole percentage point, with Senators returning to their taxpayer-funded digs to the maudlin tune of 84 percent.

Last Tuesday, the county I live in offered a ballot initiative to eliminate the current two-term limit on the position of Chairman of the County Commission. Although the current chairman is a nice enough old fellow, the initiative suddenly appeared in the final weeks before municipal election day, engendering fair questions about the timing and intent of the ballot measure. Despite my long-held view that political longevity should be bestowed by the voters alone, I voted “no.” I have concluded, after a couple of decades of soul-searching, that we in the electorate simply can’t be trusted with the task of keeping our elected officials honest.

Look again at the re-election rate for incumbents at the Federal level. Those rates change at the State and local levels only in those places that have instituted term limits as a matter of law. Elsewhere, taxpayers lay prostrate under the thumbs of the same wire-pullers and career loafers who gave birth to the exact disenchantment we’re discussing here today — and almost exclusively by their own hands.

Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) has served in the U.S. Senate since 1963. Inouye became the longest-serving current U.S. Senator 17 months ago, when Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) died. Representatives John Dingell and John Conyers, both Democrats from Michigan, have dishonored their constituents for more than a century combined. Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) left office in 2003 at the age of 100. He was the oldest-serving Senator and, until Byrd beat his record, he was the longest-serving Senator in U.S. history.

For those who muse that mandating term limits might discourage the best and brightest from running for office, the five aforementioned gentlemen serve as warning enough. The best and brightest among us want nothing to do with the electoral process, primarily because they might have to contend with petrified remnants like the five men mentioned, among others.

Some people worry term limits will drive out the few politicians who actually serve their constituents. Granted, mandated term limits would send Ron Paul for the exit, but Congressman Paul respects the voters enough to have abandoned a re-election bid in order to focus on his Presidential aspirations. As my grandfather might have said: “Ya gotta admire that kind of moxie.” And people like Paul find ways to contribute to their fellow man, Congress or not. The problem is that for every Paul, there’s an Alcee Hastings, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, Sheila Jackson Lee, Zoe Lofgren, etc.

Of course we can do better at the polls. We can elect thoughtful people who will pursue a course of action purely out of a sense of dedication to their Nation and its people. But we don’t do that. Time after time, offered the opportunity to improve our lot through intelligent balloting, we re-elect Charles Rangel.

Our Republic is slipping away from us. Term limits would hardly solve the problem. But they would be a start.

–Ben Crystal

The 33 Percent

During the genesis of the Tea Party, the corporate media could barely contain their desire to apply to that group the most defamatory labels possible. No matter how dubious, politically motivated or demonstrably dishonest the source, the hacks in the MSM raced to print spurious tales of racism, violence and hatred. The slander reached such a comically fevered pitch that Tea Partiers began carrying signs reading “It doesn’t matter what this sign says, MSNBC will call it racist.” And MSNBC, among others, was more than happy to oblige — all while carefully ignoring authenticated video of union thug violence in Wisconsin, Common Cause racism in California and the fact that nobody produced a shred of evidence proving the Tea Party was guilty of anything more than recognizing that MSNBC is an overloaded clown car.

The media coverage of the so-called “occupiers” has been markedly different, although equally suspect. But who are the “occupiers?” We know they don’t like being called “fleabaggers.” I might care more about their delicate sensibilities if they had spent the past few years calling Tea Partiers something other than repulsive names. Plus, accounting for proportion, fleas run far, jump high and lift many times their own bodyweight.  No flea ever held up a sign demanding the fleas who found the rats’ nest share the blood. Fleas work hard. “Fleabagger” is unfair to the fleas.

Perhaps we should consider who they are not. They are not all refugees from their parents’ basements. There are the kids who hang out at the coffee shop (which is a franchise of a global chain). There’s also that kid with the hair and the facial piercings who won’t look you in the eye at the copy store and the ones who piled up a quarter million dollars in debt while completing their women’s studies degrees. And there are the ones who are high on acid and think this whole thing is the worst Phish concert ever.

Examine their professed identification with the poor, homeless and those in need of special care. Just the other day, I watched the homeless guy on the corner stop talking to the voices in his head in order to take a call from his mother on his iPhone. Oh, wait; that was an “occupier.” Actually, the occupiers appear to react poorly to the homeless. Disturbed people seem to annoy them, as well. Witness the epic beat down delivered unto the homeless and disturbed guy who woke up the occupier in Zuccotti Park last weekend. I’m still trying to figure out what the occupier was so angry about. Sure, the homeless guy woke him up; but it’s not as if he was late for work.

They do hate the rich — except for George Soros. And it would appear Michael Moore gets an exemption, as well. Or maybe they believe him when he claims reporters who point out that he’s banked millions of dollars are lying tools of the 1 percent. Of course, at $50 million, Moore is part of an even smaller group: the 1/10th of 1 percent. Alec Baldwin seems cool with the kiddies, as well. And he hawks credit cards on television, when he’s not calling for someone to kill Republican Congressmen. Susan Sarandon is hardly suffering, and she’s… well… she used to be semi-married to Tim Robbins.

Not all the occupiers are pasty-faced suburbanites, either. In Atlanta, members of the Nation of Islam have begun wearing their cute little bow ties to the Occupier rally. Say what you wish about those racist — albeit dapper — wannabe storm troopers, at least they have style.

The union thugs have been spotted bringing their particular panache to the proceedings. Who didn’t get a kick out of watching United Steelworkers’ Union President Leo Gerard crying “…we need more militancy… We start occupying the banks, places themselves.” So, that whole “occupier” nonviolence thing was more of a guideline than an actual rule.

Don’t forget the run-of-the-mill filth who always seem to show up at liberal shriekfests: the pimps, dealers, thieves, rapists and Al Sharpton. That was quite a number they did on Oakland, Calif. We learned the one aspect of government the Occupiers don’t want more of: police.

The so-called “occupiers” are an amorphous melange of criminals, parasites, layabouts, spoiled brats, Hollywood morons, millionaire and billionaire hypocrites, racists and MSNBC hosts. Wait a second; I recognize these guys. They’re the Democratic Party. They’re the 33 percent.

–Ben Crystal

The Noose Is Loose

I am intrigued by Herman Cain’s campaign. It continues to break virtually every rule in the book regarding successful Presidential quests; yet it continues to roll full steam ahead, despite the flagrant violations of political sense.

The YouTube ad featuring Cain’s extraordinarily non-telegenic chief of staff smoking on camera was nothing short of bizarre, but it worked precisely as intended. Cain’s debate performances have been inconsistent at best, but he has managed to avoid any Walter Mondale moments. While many of the other candidates have more-established bases of support, better-founded fundraising teams and much stronger ties to the Republican establishment, Cain has played up his outsider status without deliberately insulting as-yet undecided Republicans.

And, on the off chance you missed it, Cain is a black man. Cain is a conservative black man. To the Democratic/liberal elite, which snares the black vote in a web of taxpayer-funded governmental dominance and the exaltation of bloviating transparencies like President Barack Obama, the conservative black man is less appealing than a churchless reverend–turned-cable-host who took part in a conspiracy which involved smearing feces on a teenage girl (not that such an aberration exists or anything).

When the liberal elites dislike something, they ignore it. If it gains in stature, they deplore it. And if it begins to threaten their death grip on their beloved governmental power, they break out the big guns (except for the Brady Campaign guys; theirs are make-believe). Hence, the escalation of the already appalling blitzkrieg on Cain from mundane racist remarks by low-forehead types like Lawrence O’Donnell to the pure-hit piece that appeared on POLITICO and has since become the key talking point across the corporate media. Entitled “Herman Cain accused by two women of inappropriate behavior,” the story was a vague mashup of nonspecific allegations, unconfirmed documents and faceless sources.

The sources — including the recollections of close associates and other documentation — describe episodes that left the women upset and offended… There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.

“Not overtly sexual but that… made [them] uncomfortable…” Really? What’s the matter, ladies? Did mean old Mr. Cain suggest those vertical stripes don’t suit you? What a cad.

Granted, the National Restaurant Association did settle complaints against Cain, reportedly for five figures. But such small settlements in the age of vermin like John Banzhaf and John Edwards are more indicative of the fact that it’s cheaper to pay vermin to leave than it is to try to exterminate them in the courtroom.

Although the POLITICO hit piece is already unraveling, the usual liberal suspects are clinging desperately to its weak threads. As expected, MSNBC took the lead with Democratic mouthpiece Chris Matthews actually congratulating one of the POLITICO “plumbers” for the drivel. The rest of the liberal media legions have followed suit, including The New York Times, The Washington Post and the tinfoil-hat wing of the blogosphere. Actually, they’re noteworthy for having spent more than a year ignoring the absolutely true allegations against Edwards.

A button-man scrap of quasi-journalism is directed against a rising black conservative at a time when the liberals’ alleged savior is stumbling like a Kennedy leaving a partially submerged car in a creek near a Massachusetts town. I’m sure the timing is purely coincidental and not in any way by design. After all, the corporate media would never trot out some cellophane-thin tale of this nature for political or — horrors — racial reasons.

The real lesson in this full court press against Cain is an old one. The same liberals who had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the truth about their idols — Kennedy (pick one), Bill Clinton, Edwards, Eliot Spitzer and David Patterson, to name but a few — only to promptly excuse and/or forgive them stand at attention at the front of the line to tie the noose around Cain’s neck. Maybe they still have the one they tried on Clarence Thomas.

–Ben Crystal

The Lawyer, The Liberals And The Law

When I first saw the headline: “Muslims Sue to Remove Crosses at Catholic University,” my common sense-alarms began shrieking like Democrats trying to shout down an intelligent guest speaker.

Granted, one could remove the identifier “Muslims” and still have a headline which would deliver a frown to the face of virtually anyone above Ed Schultz on the human evolutionary scale. But the idea of a bunch of Muslims who willingly chose to matriculate to the private Catholic University are actually suing because the place just seems too “Christian-ish” is the sort of stupid you can usually only catch on MSNBC. Keep in mind that “Catholic University” is not a reference to an individual Catholic university; “Catholic University” in this case is the NAME OF THE FREAKING SCHOOL!

 “My, Akbar! What a marvelous university we have chosen!”

 “Indeed, Mustafa. If only there were fewer infidel symbols about. It really offends my delicate sensibilities.”

However, before you begin spitting epithets at poor Akbar and Mustapha, a caveat: they have nothing to do with this scurrilous outrage. In fact, not ONE Muslim is a complainant in the lawsuit against Catholic U. So, who possesses the unmitigated gall required to defile an American courtroom in such a manner it requires a particularly abominable character — someone of such low moral fiber, with such a clouded soul they would give Hannibal Lecter pause?

Meet John Banzhaf, George Washington University law professor, infamous uber-litigator and an ambulance-chasing, frivolous lawsuit-bringing parasite who is so deservedly reviled for his litigious ways that he makes even former Democrat Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards look like Clarence Darrow.

If you haven’t heard of Banzhaf, count yourself lucky. In addition to being a prominent member of the American liberal movement — in itself a refuge for many of the most twisted and deficient cretins in the nation (see also: fleabaggers), Banzhaf is essentially the living embodiment of the reason Americans hate trial lawyers.

Think of the guys who advertise on buses, phone books and late night television. The guys who promise should you slip and fall in your neighbor’s driveway, he’ll get you a “SUPER SETTLEMENT;” even if that means bankrupting your neighbors, the contractor who built the driveway, the company which makes the asphalt the contractor used, and your city for approving the installation of such a slippery place.

Now think of that briefcase-toting slug on steroids. Banzhaf is the bottom-feeder who sues pretty much anyone from whom he thinks he can abscond with money; no matter how devoid of merit his actions might be.

Of course, Banzhaf is pursuing this latest legal-beagling for the same reason Democrat leaders do anything: good, old-fashioned hypocritical greed. His actions, though revolting, are no different than liberal icon, Halliburton investor and war profiteer Michael Moore urging his followers to abhor the wealthy while he sits on a pile of money.

Banzhaf is suing Catholic U. for the same reason Nancy Pelosi shrieks about the plight of the poor from her multi-million dollar palace in San Francisco. Banzhaf’s motives are the same as those of President and Mrs. Obama, who can call themselves “warriors for the middle class” while spending millions on Spanish vacations and separate planes to Martha’s Vineyard (where Michelle will nag people about their diets in between spoonfuls of Crisco® straight from the can).

In the case of Banzhaf’s latest assault on dignity, there are real victims beyond the mindless drones who offer fealty to filth like Moore and the Obamas: the students in whose name Banzhaf filed the suit.

There are moments when the actions of SOME Muslims border on the cringe-worthy. And as I have noted before, most of the basic tenets of Islam really don’t work for me. The often brutal subjugation of women, the pre-industrial attitudes of many Muslims and the ban on bacon cheeseburgers are all deal-breakers for me.

However, not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Muslims are troglodyte repressors. And absolutely NO Muslims are suing Catholic University over the ubiquity of Christian imagery at that well-respected institution. Instead, they’re being used as props in the same appalling hypocrisy which marks virtually every liberal action.

 Now they know how we feel.

–Ben Crystal